31
burning of extracted coal, would be utterly “inconsistent with existing carbon budget and policy intentions to keep global temperature increases to below 1.5° to 2 °C
above pre-industrial levels and would have a cumulative effect on climate change in
the long term” (para. 422).
10
Such arguments have been grounded on IPCC’s AR5
calculations on the global carbon budget. GG cited several carbon budget calculations to advocate that, given the relentless risk of overshooting the carbon budget in
little more than two decades, “[m]ost of the world’s existing fossil fuel reserves –
coal, oil and gas – must be left in the ground, unburned”, and “no new fossil fuel
developments can therefore be allowed” (para. 447). More specifically, based on
recent studies on global carbon budget’s implications for fossil fuels sectors, to
achieve the 50% probability of meeting the 2 °C target would require 62% of the
global existing fossil fuel reserves to be not exploited, and 88% of coal reserves
would not be burned at any rate.
11
Narrowed down at the regional scale, over 90%
of Australia’s existing coal reserves should not be burned in order for the country to
operate consistently with the Paris 2 °C target—let alone the most stringent 1.5 °C
target (McGlade and Ekins 2015). Thus, development of any new fossil fuel
reserves, “no matter how small, is incompatible with any carbon budget assuming a
50% or better chance of the budget meeting the temperature target” (para. 449).
Importantly, CJ Preston firmly recognized the causal link between the Rocky
Hill project’s cumulative GHG emissions and global warming. The judge also
accepted GG’s evidence on the carbon budget approach required to achieve longterm temperature goals. Moreover, these arguments served as the basis for the wrong
time test, according to which a new mining site such as the Rocky Hill project would
“increase global total concentrations of GHGs at a time when what is now urgently
needed, in order to meet generally agreed climate targets, is a rapid and deep
decrease in GHG emissions” (para. 699). Looking at the project from a carbon budget perspective, CJ Preston quashed GRL’s arguments that GHG emissions from the
mine would represent only a fraction of total global emissions, which altogether
contribute to the carbon budget, and therefore to climate change.
12
In the judge’s
view, multiple local actions are needed to adequately mitigate emissions at sources
10 GG’s arguments fundamentally relied on the expert testimony of Emeritus Professor Will Steffen,
an Earth System scientist at the Australian National University, Senior Fellow of the Stockholm
Resilience Centre and Member of the Climate Council of Australia. Steffen’s testimony drew on
both global and Australian publications, including reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia’s premier scientific research organisation.
11 The global 2011–2050 carbon budget estimation as presented in Court equalled 300 Gt C. The
presented study also showed that about 780 Gt C would be emitted as CO 2 were all of the world’s
existing fossil fuel reserves burned—about 2.5 times greater than the allowable budget. Importantly,
GG inferred from this data that to achieve the Paris Agreement targets implies not only currently
operating mines and gas wells to be closed before their economic lifetime, but also that no approved
and proposed fossil fuel projects, based on existing reserves, shall be implemented.
12 Relevant, CJ Preston extensively relies on the doctrine in Urgenda v. The Netherlands District
Court’s decision to reject this argument (paras. 521–524).
Climate Science Before the Courts: Turning the Tide in Climate Change Litigation
burning of extracted coal, would be utterly “inconsistent with existing carbon budget and policy intentions to keep global temperature increases to below 1.5° to 2 °C
above pre-industrial levels and would have a cumulative effect on climate change in
the long term” (para. 422).
10
Such arguments have been grounded on IPCC’s AR5
calculations on the global carbon budget. GG cited several carbon budget calculations to advocate that, given the relentless risk of overshooting the carbon budget in
little more than two decades, “[m]ost of the world’s existing fossil fuel reserves –
coal, oil and gas – must be left in the ground, unburned”, and “no new fossil fuel
developments can therefore be allowed” (para. 447). More specifically, based on
recent studies on global carbon budget’s implications for fossil fuels sectors, to
achieve the 50% probability of meeting the 2 °C target would require 62% of the
global existing fossil fuel reserves to be not exploited, and 88% of coal reserves
would not be burned at any rate.
11
Narrowed down at the regional scale, over 90%
of Australia’s existing coal reserves should not be burned in order for the country to
operate consistently with the Paris 2 °C target—let alone the most stringent 1.5 °C
target (McGlade and Ekins 2015). Thus, development of any new fossil fuel
reserves, “no matter how small, is incompatible with any carbon budget assuming a
50% or better chance of the budget meeting the temperature target” (para. 449).
Importantly, CJ Preston firmly recognized the causal link between the Rocky
Hill project’s cumulative GHG emissions and global warming. The judge also
accepted GG’s evidence on the carbon budget approach required to achieve longterm temperature goals. Moreover, these arguments served as the basis for the wrong
time test, according to which a new mining site such as the Rocky Hill project would
“increase global total concentrations of GHGs at a time when what is now urgently
needed, in order to meet generally agreed climate targets, is a rapid and deep
decrease in GHG emissions” (para. 699). Looking at the project from a carbon budget perspective, CJ Preston quashed GRL’s arguments that GHG emissions from the
mine would represent only a fraction of total global emissions, which altogether
contribute to the carbon budget, and therefore to climate change.
12
In the judge’s
view, multiple local actions are needed to adequately mitigate emissions at sources
10 GG’s arguments fundamentally relied on the expert testimony of Emeritus Professor Will Steffen,
an Earth System scientist at the Australian National University, Senior Fellow of the Stockholm
Resilience Centre and Member of the Climate Council of Australia. Steffen’s testimony drew on
both global and Australian publications, including reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia’s premier scientific research organisation.
11 The global 2011–2050 carbon budget estimation as presented in Court equalled 300 Gt C. The
presented study also showed that about 780 Gt C would be emitted as CO 2 were all of the world’s
existing fossil fuel reserves burned—about 2.5 times greater than the allowable budget. Importantly,
GG inferred from this data that to achieve the Paris Agreement targets implies not only currently
operating mines and gas wells to be closed before their economic lifetime, but also that no approved
and proposed fossil fuel projects, based on existing reserves, shall be implemented.
12 Relevant, CJ Preston extensively relies on the doctrine in Urgenda v. The Netherlands District
Court’s decision to reject this argument (paras. 521–524).
Climate Science Before the Courts: Turning the Tide in Climate Change Litigation